Difference between revisions of "Team:Aalto-Helsinki/humhub"
m (photo added) |
m |
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
.communitybg { | .communitybg { | ||
background-repeat: repeat-y; | background-repeat: repeat-y; | ||
− | background-image: url("https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/ | + | background-image: url("https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/2/2a/Aalto-Helsinki_community_background.png"); |
background-size: 100%; | background-size: 100%; | ||
} | } | ||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
<p>In Aalto-Helsinki, the team from last year had managed to continue a sponsorship to use Flowdock communication platform in 2015. They had started with it in 2014 and found it a good way to keep on track about the project. It doesn’t have similar problems as Facebook: as all of the team members were new to Flowdock, there was no extra clutter: everything that happened on Flowdock, had to do with the project. Emails and Tweets could also be forwarded to different subforums called “flows” to keep on track with other platforms as well. Some problems did however rise: as Flowdock was new to everyone in the team, it took some time to get used to checking it on a regular basis as well as organizing the information. You can create separate flows on Flowdock to discuss different things and tag people as well as discussion topics, but conversations have a tendency to get lost when many ongoing topics are discussed at the same time. For this reason, some of the team members tried to initiate the use of Facebook instead of Flowdock, but as the team was afraid of the same issues that Stockholm had run into, Aalto-Helsinki stuck with Flowdock. Another problem with Flowdock was that even though Aalto-Helsinki could could use it for free, there was no way all iGEM teams could get Flowdock for free. For this reason, it is by no means a platform to collaborate with other teams, and the use of an additional communication platform for this purpose is inevitable.</p> | <p>In Aalto-Helsinki, the team from last year had managed to continue a sponsorship to use Flowdock communication platform in 2015. They had started with it in 2014 and found it a good way to keep on track about the project. It doesn’t have similar problems as Facebook: as all of the team members were new to Flowdock, there was no extra clutter: everything that happened on Flowdock, had to do with the project. Emails and Tweets could also be forwarded to different subforums called “flows” to keep on track with other platforms as well. Some problems did however rise: as Flowdock was new to everyone in the team, it took some time to get used to checking it on a regular basis as well as organizing the information. You can create separate flows on Flowdock to discuss different things and tag people as well as discussion topics, but conversations have a tendency to get lost when many ongoing topics are discussed at the same time. For this reason, some of the team members tried to initiate the use of Facebook instead of Flowdock, but as the team was afraid of the same issues that Stockholm had run into, Aalto-Helsinki stuck with Flowdock. Another problem with Flowdock was that even though Aalto-Helsinki could could use it for free, there was no way all iGEM teams could get Flowdock for free. For this reason, it is by no means a platform to collaborate with other teams, and the use of an additional communication platform for this purpose is inevitable.</p> | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
− | + | ||
<h2>Then there was the Hub</h2> | <h2>Then there was the Hub</h2> | ||
<p>Following the discussions within Team Stockholm, a network was set up by Hugi from using the open source ???. In many ways, the Hub mimics a regular social network. However some functions have been added such as a better word processor. People can join different ’spaces’. One can for example make one space for each team, sub-team responsibility, such as wetlab work, cross team collaboration etc.. In each space users are able to post text, pictures, links etc. to share with each other. People are also able to post to everyone in the ’Open Forum’, for example to request help or reach out for a certain collaboration.
</p> | <p>Following the discussions within Team Stockholm, a network was set up by Hugi from using the open source ???. In many ways, the Hub mimics a regular social network. However some functions have been added such as a better word processor. People can join different ’spaces’. One can for example make one space for each team, sub-team responsibility, such as wetlab work, cross team collaboration etc.. In each space users are able to post text, pictures, links etc. to share with each other. People are also able to post to everyone in the ’Open Forum’, for example to request help or reach out for a certain collaboration.
</p> | ||
− | |||
<p>Aalto-Helsinki and Stockholm set up their own collaboration space and kept in touch through the Hub. This report was also initiated through a discussion on the Hub itself.</p> | <p>Aalto-Helsinki and Stockholm set up their own collaboration space and kept in touch through the Hub. This report was also initiated through a discussion on the Hub itself.</p> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <figure> | ||
+ | <a href="http://188.166.20.22/humhub" target="_blank"> | ||
+ | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/6/68/Aalto-Helsinki_humhub.png" style="width:800px;"/></a> | ||
+ | <figcaption>Click the picture to take a look at the Hub!</figcaption> | ||
+ | </figure></a> | ||
<h2>Tools matter</h2> | <h2>Tools matter</h2> | ||
Line 70: | Line 72: | ||
<p>The Hub holds promise to solving many of the problems pointed out earlier. As the Hub could be used for iGEM communication alone, there would be no unnecessary distractions. It however works quite similarly as e.g. Facebook, and most team members would find it easy to use as they are already used to the way Facebook is set up. It would also remove the necessity of multiple platforms for intra- and interteam communication as is the case with e.g. Aalto-Helsinki at the moment. It would also help the problem of communicating with teams in countries where there may not be access to Facebook, or where Facebook may not be popular. If HumHub would be spread out through the headquarters, teams would be encouraged to use it and the communication between teams would likely be much easier.</p> | <p>The Hub holds promise to solving many of the problems pointed out earlier. As the Hub could be used for iGEM communication alone, there would be no unnecessary distractions. It however works quite similarly as e.g. Facebook, and most team members would find it easy to use as they are already used to the way Facebook is set up. It would also remove the necessity of multiple platforms for intra- and interteam communication as is the case with e.g. Aalto-Helsinki at the moment. It would also help the problem of communicating with teams in countries where there may not be access to Facebook, or where Facebook may not be popular. If HumHub would be spread out through the headquarters, teams would be encouraged to use it and the communication between teams would likely be much easier.</p> | ||
− | <p>Obviously it’s a question of getting used to things. A new platform doesn’t solve the problem that team members need to get used to checking a new place for information when they start with an iGEM project. But if HumHub became the norm of communication within iGEM, it’d be adopted by new teams fast and with little effort and it could also function as a means to find other teams to work with. Contacting others may also become more simple as teams would have less communication streams from different platforms coming in. If everything was focused on one platform, noticing new messages and replying to them may be more likely than staying on lookout for invitations to collaborate coming through e.g. Facebook, Twitter and email.</p | + | <p>Obviously it’s a question of getting used to things. A new platform doesn’t solve the problem that team members need to get used to checking a new place for information when they start with an iGEM project. But if HumHub became the norm of communication within iGEM, it’d be adopted by new teams fast and with little effort and it could also function as a means to find other teams to work with. Contacting others may also become more simple as teams would have less communication streams from different platforms coming in. If everything was focused on one platform, noticing new messages and replying to them may be more likely than staying on lookout for invitations to collaborate coming through e.g. Facebook, Twitter and email.</p> |
</div> | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
− | </div></div></div> <!--These are the closing tags for div id="mainContainer" and div id="contentContainer". The corresponding opening tags appear in the template that is {{included}} at the top of this page.--> | + | </div></div></div> <!--These are the closing tags for div id="mainContainer" and div id="contentContainer". The corresponding opening tags appear in the template that is {{included}} at the top of this page.--!> |
− | <p style="margin-bottom:0;"> <!-- there is a closing /p at the footer we can't access, this prevents a gap in the background at the bottom of the page --> | + | <p style="margin-bottom:0;"> <!-- there is a closing /p at the footer we can't access, this prevents a gap in the background at the bottom of the page --!> |
Revision as of 13:46, 12 September 2015